The article is the first of a proposed two-
part essay under the heading: “Searching for Obama.”

Except for part of the first
paragraph, the selections copied below are from the final sections of the
article.

***

Excerpts from:

“Jack Cashill’s Expose: Who
wrote Obama’s Dreams from My Father?”

by Ronald Bleier

In early 2011 on CSPAN’s Book TV
program I watched author Jack Cashill present his controversial and startling
theory regarding Obama’s memoir,
Dreams from My Father (1995). Summarizing the findings he set out in his
recently published Deconstructing Obama,[i] Cashill
contended that Obama’s memoir was ghostwritten by Bill
Ayers.

…

Authorship of
Dreams-- A Matter of Importance?

The question of whether Dreams from My
Father was ghostwritten or not rose
above the trivial for me because by
early 2011 I had come to believe that President Obama had been relentlessly
pursuing an extremist right-wing Republican agenda. In foreign policy he continued and escalated
the destructive militarism of his predecessors revealing a lack of compassion
and ruthlessness that rivaled his bloody predecessors. I felt that Oliver Stone
was not exaggerating when he termed President Obama “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”
referencing his militarism and his efforts to scuttle Constitutional rights of
due process. Domestically Obama has promoted and continues to favor a damaging
program of austerity and tax cuts, including the more than a trillion in tax
cuts that he has already pushed through in 2009 and 2010[ii]; with apparently
more to come in 2012-2013.

The argument is that
if President Obama has pursued these policies with the full awareness of the
consequences for the economy and for his re-election (see below) it can be
deduced that counterintuitively he prefers a hobbled economy, a weakened
Democratic Party, an undermined and demoralized middle class—his base-- in order
to pursue a Republican agenda of attacks on labor, the middle class, Social
Security and Medicare.

Similarly his
escalation and continuation of the drone strike program in Pakistan and Yemen is
particularly egregious and telling. Critics of these attacks often point out
that that a chief consequence of the program which reportedly kills more
civilians than “militants” by a factor or 2 or 3 or 4 or more, is to radicalize
the local population and in the end, create more “terrorists.” In other words,
if the purpose of the drone program is counterterrorism, then the program is
counterproductive—not to speak of its appalling destruction and the perilous
precedent it sets for the future security of all nations.

Since these effects
must be as plain to the White House as they are to critics, the implication is
that Obama’s “anti-terrorism” rhetoric masks a more sinister program. The drone
program seems designed to allow free rein to the most militaristic and
aggressive elements of the U.S.’s national security state, embodied in Obama’s
hawkish national security advisor, John Brennan. The evident intention of the
deadly drone attacks—not to mention other regular and special forces U.S.
military operations-- is to wreak havoc and destabilize vulnerable areas of the
world as part of an endless war agenda favored by extremist hawks,
neoconservatives and others.

Does Obama
really wish to be re-elected?

If President Obama is
a faux Democrat, a serial traitor to his party and to his core supporters, then
it would be understandable if he were not wholly comfortable in his high profile
leadership role. A second term would, among other things, only widen his
exposure as a fraud, as the great deceiver,[iii] as the more
effective evil[iv] as some are
beginning to see. Developments in a post
2013 Obama administration would continue to peel away at the veils of his
deception. If he leaves office after
only one term, he would be leaving, relatively speaking, at the top of his
game.

If he left the White
House in January 2013 he need have no fear as to the continuation of his
political program since he has already made giant strides in institutionalizing
an extremist right wing and totalitarian agenda. Due to the terrible and
groundbreaking precedents of the past decade and more, a real Republican like
Mitt Romney should have little trouble persevering on the road to heightened
national and international instability, global unsustainability and more
rigorous control everywhere from the top.

One sign that Obama is
not deeply committed to a second term would be if his re-election campaign
machine turns out to be not as smoothly run as it was in 2008. Could his June
2012 political faux pas, when he allowed that “the private sector is doing fine”
be a sign of a lack of focus or interest?
More such blunders, as well as a campaign lacking in direction, could be
signs of Obama’s inner intentions.

CSPAN
Book TV aired Jack Cashill’s book talk regarding his newly published,
Deconstructing Obama in March 2011. The Book TV website offers the
following summary of the Cashill presentation.

Jack Cashill
questions whether President Obama wrote his memoir, Dreams from My
Father. Mr. Cashill argues that
Barack Obama was assisted in the writing of his 1995 memoir by Bill Ayers and
contends that the President's life story is different than the one presented in
his biography. Jack Cashill presents his
argument at the Kansas City Public Library in Kansas City,
Missouri.

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

NYU professor, author and
election fraud activist, Mark Crispin Miller, distributed the commentary below
by Jonathan Simon on the Wisconsin/Scott Walker recall vote. The main points are
that the exit polls are as fishy as the actual vote count which is managed in
secret by Republican leaning vote counting companies. Author Jonathan Simon
doesn't mention it, but the paper ballots accompanying the voting machines are
rendered meaningless when the winning margin isn't close. No problem if your
side is doing the "counting."

My guess is that this
election was stolen just as were the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections to
name just two.

What we got tonight in Wisconsin was the same old stench, coming from the
same old corner of the room. To wit, there was a huge turnout (highly favorable
to the Democratic candidate Barrett), in fact they’re still waiting in line to
vote in Milwaukee and elsewhere nearly two hours after poll closing; and the
immediate post-closing Exit Polls had it a dead heat, 50%-50%. But the only
place those polls were posted was as a Bar Chart in the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel. Not a single network posted any Exit Poll numbers, though they all
have been regularly posting them throughout the 2012 primary season within a few
minutes of poll closing. But they all called the race “extremely tight,” since
they were looking at the same 50%-50% Exit Poll that the Journal Sentinel at
least had the courage to post in some format.

In short order, and quite predictably, the race was Walker’s, the networks
anointing him the winner as the Exit Poll “Adjustment” Process played out. You
could actually see it on the Journal Sentinel’s Bar Chart: the blue bars
shrinking and the red bars lengthening every 20 minutes or so. It will take
a bit of visual measuring but the adjustment process was egregious, on the order
of an 8-10% marginal disparity between the Unadjusted Exit Polls and the
Adjusted Exit Polls congruent to the eventually-to-be-announced “official
results.”

We’ve seen this before, election after election, the familiar “Red Shift.”
And it’s the Exit Polls that are always “off,” because the Votecounts must
always be “on.” Except that the Votecounts are secret and in the full control of
outfits, with strong right-wing affiliations, like Dominion Voting and Command
Central. Votes counted by partisans in complete secret–is this sane?

Today massive robocalls were reported to have been placed to targeted
Barrett supporters, telling them they didn’t have to vote if they had signed the
recall petition, and others that they couldn’t vote if they hadn’t voted in
2010. An obvious question: is there a bright ethical line between making
(whoever actually made them) targeted robocalls telling your opponents’
supporters they don’t have to vote if they signed the recall petition versus
setting the zero-counters on a bunch of memory cards to, say, +50 (for Walker)
and -50 (for Barrett) so at the end of the day the election admin sees a
“clean” election and you’ve shifted 100 votes per precinct? Do you believe that
operators who have clearly not blanched at doing the first would for some reason
blanch at doing the second–much neater and more efficacious as it is?

And if you’re thinking “well the pre-election polls predicted a Walker
win,” you should know that the methodology for all of those polls, even the
ones run by left-leaning outfits, was the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (google it,
by all means), which disproportionately eliminates Democratic voters (students,
renters, poor, minority) from the sample and so skews it conveniently anywhere
from 5% to 10% to the right (the pollsters all would have been out of
business by now if they had kept using a sound methodology and getting
competitive elections wrong with it).

This election was dubbed “the second most important election of 2012;” it
will “foretell” November just as the Massachusetts Special Senate Election
(Coakley-Brown) “foretold” November 2010. And there was a massive red shift and
even more than the usual indicators that it was rigged. Can anyone live with
that, just give it a pass, and sleep tonight?